The BBC reports that 31 U.S. marines were killed today when their helicopter went down in western Iraq, in bad weather. This makes today the costliest day in American military lives of the Iraq War.

And lives are not the only cost. Yesterday, President Bush asked Congress for another $80 billion for the Iraq War. This brings the price tag for our military escapade in Iraq close to $300 billion, six times the original White House estimate.

Once upon a time, on network television, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed a $300 billion cost as “baloney,” the Toronto Star says.

Hey, you go to war with the Defense Secretary you have.

Bush says the $80 billion will pay for essential equipment and supplies. Has he noticed that $300 billion divided by the 130,000 troops in Iraq comes to $2,307,692.31 per troop? We could have built 130,000 bionic robot soldiers with that much money. Or for $300 billion we could have just bought Iraq and saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

The Toronto Star also says,

With the additional military spending, the U.S. is headed for a record $427-billion deficit this year, according to figures released by the Congressional Budget Office. It also estimated a cumulative deficit of $855 billion between 2006 and 2015.

Bush has pledged to cut the U.S. budget deficit in half by the end of this term.

I know how he plans to do it, too. He’s going to remove the costs in Iraq and Afghanistan from the budget. Presto-chango!

Don’t laugh; he’s already doing it. A year ago, when the White House was drawing up the fiscal 2005 budget, the Bushies anticipated asking for a $50 billion supplemental appropriation right about now. On February 2, 2004, David Stout wrote in the New York Times (emphasis added),

The budget for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1 proposes a 7 percent increase in military spending, a 10 percent increase in domestic security spending, and a hold-the-line increase of just one-half percent for a vast array of domestic programs.

The budget does not specifically provide for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House budget director, Joshua Bolten, said the administration might ask for as much as $50 billion in supplemental funds, but not until the 2005 calendar year, which would be after the coming elections. If that amount of money is requested, and is approved by Congress, the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year would soar well over $400 billion.

In other words, the Bushies knew a year ago that they’d need at least a $50 billion supplement right about now, but they deliberately kept it off the budget so the budget wouldn’t look so bad. The $80 billion requested yesterday is that same $50 billion, plus a bunch.

And that’s not all. Reuters reported that the $80 billion is in addition to $25 billion in emergency spending already approved for this fiscal year, which just started October 1. This means we’re up to $105 billion for fiscal 2005. And this money was not in the 2005 budget.

And, oh, does it get better. On Monday, Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, former (pre Dubya) White House senior budget official for national security, wrote in New York Newsday:

In its new budget proposal, the Pentagon is finally confronting a reality that had been hidden since the morning of Sept. 11, 2001: There is not enough money to pay for the wars on terror and in Iraq, fund long-term defense strategy and the forces needed to carry it out, pay for military benefits, and buy future defense technology - all at the same time - especially with a growing federal deficit.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced this problem in 2001, but al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein saved his bacon. For three years, supplemental budgets have let him fund his technology cake and consume large forces at the same time. But, beneath the surface, the resource stress was growing.

The wars on terror and in Iraq were the first big problem. Although these are said to cost “only” $5 billion a month, and are being funded by supplemental appropriations, this is a “Wizard of Oz” view.

Behind the screen, taxpayers are spending twice as much on these wars. The additional costs are being funded out of military hide - reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, delays on maintaining facilities. We are already mortgaging the military future through “back-door” budgeting for the wars.

According to the Reuters article linked above, only a fraction of the $18.4 billion set aside for rebuilding Iraq has been spent. What do you want to bet that money’s been siphoned off and spent elsewhere?

Remember Carl Sagan? He used to talk about “billions and billions” of things when explaining the vastness of the cosmos. Now we talk about “billions and billions” to talk about the Bush budget. And, like the cosmos, there’s no end in sight.

But that’s only money. As I write, the Iraq death toll for U.S. troops is 1,417. Along with the 31 marines, 5 U.S. troops perished elsewhere in Iraq, for a total of 36 today, so far. And on this day Condi Rice, whose lies helped lure us into this mess, is expected to be confirmed as Secretary of State.

‘Scuse me while I go bounce off walls for a while.